In an essay published in the July edition of the theological journal Communio, Benedict the Abdicator dipped a toe – just a toe, mind you – into traditional waters with regard to the Church’s relationship with the Jews.
The result? All Hell broke loose, literally, as Satan’s servants – both Jewish and otherwise – immediately played the “anti-Semitism” card.
Benedict’s high crime was that he didn’t reassure the Jews quite enough that their rejection of Jesus Christ in no way jeopardizes their prospects for eternal salvation.
As of this writing, Benedict’s essay is available only in German, but thanks to the invaluable efforts of Maike Hickson, some key excerpts have been made available in English via an article published at LifeSite News. She writes:
The reason for this sharp criticism is the fact that Pope Benedict, in his 20-page-long essay, makes an attempt at redefining or modifying two “theses” in the Church’s teachings of the last decades concerning the Jews and their role in the history of salvation. As Benedict says: “Both theses – namely that Israel has not been substituted by the Church and that the [Old] Covenant has never been rescinded – are in essence true, but are in many respects imprecise and have to be further critically examined.”
Benedict went on to point out that it was John Paul the Great Mensch, who during a 1980 visit to Mainz, Germany, declared to representatives of the Jewish community that the Old Covenant has never been revoked, and that this highly irresponsible (and borderline heretical) statement eventually found its way into the 1992 Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC 121).
As I’ve written in this space before, Santo Subito neo-cons (and that would include the Pope Contemplatus) view the CCC as holy writ. As such, it should come as no surprise that Benedict said that Wojtyla’s claim about the Old Covenant “is, in a certain sense, part of the current teaching figure [‘Lehrgestalt’] of the Catholic Church.”
Current teaching… Don’t you just love it when a modernist reveals himself so plainly?
Before we continue with our examination, I’d like to address two asides:
First, one may perhaps now understand why Benedict has been so unwilling to criticize Bergoglio’s assorted blasphemies and heresies. You see (assuming, of course, that he sincerely believes that Francis is the pope in spite of the circumstances surrounding his resignation), Benedict apparently imagines that the current teaching of the Church is established by whatever happens to escape the lips of the reigning pope.
Secondly, the aforementioned speech given by John Paul II in Mainz, which is a veritable train wreck, merits a closer look of its own.
Rabbi Wojtyla began by addressing the gathering, which consisted of persons whose singular most noteworthy distinction concerns their utter rejection of Jesus Christ (and thus He who sent Him), calling on them as “dear brothers.”
Removing any doubt as to whether he was simply giving an informal greeting or making a theological statement, he went on to say:
Christians must feel themselves brothers of all men and behave accordingly, this sacred obligation is even more valid when they are faced with members of the Jewish people!
Get that? Not only are Christians “brothers” with those who have no knowledge of Christ; we are all the more brothers with those who actively oppose Him! But wait, it gets worse.
He then spoke of “Christians affirming their belonging to the Jewish people.”
Now, bear in mind, here he is speaking, not to the likes of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, but rather to the likes of Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin. These are the same persons in the order of faith of whom St. Paul said:
They were broken off [from “the good olive tree” – the tree of life] because of their unbelief… if they do not persist in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God has the power to graft them in again. (cf Romans 11:20-23)
And yet, Wojtyla says that we belong to them? In a sense, he was correct inasmuch as he was speaking for himself; i.e., as he spoke, he clearly did belong to those who stand in need of being grafted in again.
Can it get worse? Yes, in fact, it can.
He went on to say of his pronouncements of unbridled esteem for these enemies of Christ the King, “It is not just a correction of a false religious view of the Jewish people…” In other words, it is a correction of a false religious view.
And to what “religious view” is he referring? The one preached by St. Peter on the day of Pentecost, the one transmitted by St. Paul as cited above; i.e., the one held by the Holy Catholic Church for nearly two millennia!
This is what constitutes the current teaching of the Church according to Ratzinger, and it must be so, if for no other reason than the fact that it came from the lips of the Santo dei tutti Santi, John Paul the Great Implementer of the Almighty Council.
Having been informed of this madness, how anyone in their right mind can confuse this “church” with the Holy Roman Catholic Church is a mystery to me.
With this as the backdrop – the same that provided the Jews and the inter-religious dialoguers of today with the lens through which they are reading Benedict’s essay – we will continue with our own examination.
As Mrs. Hickson writes:
Pope Benedict subsequently tries to show that God Himself never rescinds a covenant, but, rather, that God’s people, mankind, often violate and break a covenant with God. In this sense, says the retired pope, there are several covenants – with Noah, Moses, David – that each have been broken by men. In this context, Benedict refers also to the Epistle of St. Paul to the Hebrews in which St. Paul mentions the previous covenants of the Old Testament “all of which he [St. Paul] sums up under the keyword ‘first covenant’ which now has been replaced by the final ‘new’ covenant.”
Wow! Benedict actually stated that the Old Covenant, the ongoing validity of which the conciliar church has been tirelessly reassuring the Jews for decades on end, now has been replaced!
No wonder the backlash has been so severe. It is a remarkable statement indeed given the source, but let’s not sing Benedict’s praises just yet.
Remember, Ratzinger is first and foremost a modernist and a man-of-the-council. As such, come Hell or high water, he simply must find a way to reconcile “the current teaching” with tradition; i.e., he will manufacture “continuity” where none truly exists.
How?
The same way he attempted to establish continuity between the Novus Ordo and the Mass of Ages – with linguistic trickery.
The re-institution of the Covenant of Sinai into the New Covenant in the Blood of Jesus – that is to say, in His love which surpasses death – gives the Covenant a new and forever valid form … Thus there is indeed not really a ‘substitution’, but a journey which leads finally to one single reality, with the nevertheless necessary disappearance of the sacrifice of animals [of the Old Covenant] which is being replaced (“substitution”) by the Eucharist.
So, there you have it: One Covenant in two forms!
The punchline to all of this garbage is that men-of-the-council – like Ratzinger, Wojtyla before him, and whomever may fill their shoes in the future – are pretty much making it up as they go along.
Sure, Vatican II, their New Pentecost, is the launching point, but given that it has no roots in authentic Catholic tradition, just like Protestantism, endless innovation is unavoidable.
As for the backlash that Benedict is facing in light of his pathetic essay?
He deserves every last bit of it; not because he spoke the truth, but because he didn’t.
St. Athanasius:
“For thus, the former Jews also, denying the Word, and saying, We have no king but Caesar,’ were forthwith stripped of all they had, and forfeited the light of the Lamp, the odor of ointment, knowledge of prophecy, and the Truth itself; till now they understand nothing, but are walking as in darkness.” (First Discourse Against The Arians, Chap. 3, c. AD 360)
“Benedict’s high crime was that he didn’t reassure the Jews quite enough that their rejection of Jesus Christ in no way jeopardizes their prospects for eternal salvation.”
Of course he did !
When the Hierarchy became enmeshed with the politics of this world it naturally had to compromise Christ’s teachings.
One only has to look at the Parochial school system. As soon as the Bishops allowed for the purchase of retired public school texts ,they put most Catholic Publishers out of business. The laity’s only clue was that the texts stop coming home with their children for homework assignments. If they did ,the parents might see the public school stamps on the inside jackets and realize they had already paid for the curriculum with their tax dollars and the tuition breakdown on their curriculum line item in their tuition bill was a boldface lie.
So Louie has it all been the Jews fault or did we ,the sleeping laity , have something to do with it?
We have been asleep for centuries trusting that our prelates represented Jesus on earth and worshiping them unquestioningly.
Sleeping? Why the heck shouldn’t we trust that our prelates represented Jesus on earth. You are on a real stupid crusade here to blame the laity and absolve Jews. Though I didn’t see Louie blame the Jews for anything. I blame Freemasons, sodomites, communists and regular old liberal heretics.
Two Scriptures at least specifically indicate the end of the Old Covenant:
Hebrews 10 8-9
8 In saying before, Sacrifices, and oblations, and holocausts for sin thou wouldest not, neither are they pleasing to thee, which are offered according to the law.
9 Then said I: Behold, I come to do thy will, O God: he taketh away the first, that he may establish that which followeth.
2 Corinthians 3:7-11
7 But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away: 8 how shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious? 9 For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory. 10 For even that which was made glorious had no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excelleth. 11 For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious.
…
That the Old Covenant remains in effect directly contradicts the Scriptures…but of course, neither Scripture nor Tradition matter to the heretical Vatican II cult
Here is another passage of Holy Scripture that contradicts the CCC:
.
Hebrews 8:13 Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)
13 Now in saying a new, he hath made the former old. And that which decayeth and groweth old, is near its end
[24] And Pilate seeing that he prevailed nothing, but that rather a tumult was made; taking water washed his hands before the people, saying: I am innocent of the blood of this just man; look you to it. [25] And the whole people answering, said: His blood be upon us and our children. Matt. 27
+Williamson:
The Fundamental Opposition: Catholicism vs. Judaism
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNcge-ne08Q
Melanie , when Randy wrote RoS she got hit with a million and one so called Catholic critics. I listened to way too many Catholics on pro life buses to DC blaming the children and the victims who spoke out about abusive priests and pastors. ” Monkey see monkey do” ,was what I heard over and over when one brave set of parents went to the police and it hit local papers and other parents came forward from five to ten years earlier who told stories how they to went to the bishop or the pastor when their children were abused by the same priests. “The pastor
( or Bishop) said he would take care of the problem priest.” The laity who knew always said these were lies for money.
Over and over again. Meanwhile, at the same time I was also hearing from rectory employees about how the priests they worked for were all active sodomites. God forbid I confide in other Catholics by way of warning! I was a “liar” a “gossip” etc just for warning them to be careful with Fr so and so and their children.
Yes the communist homosexuals infiltrated the seminaries in the late twenties early thirties and yes the communist Jews had much to do with the Bolshevik Revolution BUT in a Hierarchical Monarchy with absolute power we are at the mercy of the leadership and as in Russia and France the communist freemasons found these institutions were easy to infiltrate. There WERE plenty of Heavenly interventions but no one listened because these corrupt men simply do not Believe. Melanie Calvat was literally tortured by Bishops and laity alike for repeating what Our Holy Mother told her.
The laity ALWAYS claim the Church is under attack but never wanted to believe the attack was also from the inside.
Well now they know for sure. I thank God for Randy Engel because she listened and did not pass judgement but rather she investigated to confirm the truth.
I’m with Tom A, let this corrupted institution fall to ashes and may it please God that it be rebuilt , this time with the help of the Holy Ghost, minus the Jewish Freemasons under the porch.
Oh wake the heck up! Williamson hid homosexual priests too!
Given the hideous events seventy years ago, which still lies like a dark cloud over any discussion about the Jews, one has at least to try to tread carefully, if only out of respect for the dead.
I was shocked a couple of years ago when a Traditionalist friend (himself a convert from an atheistic Jewish family) said to me, “You know, one can never justify for a moment what the Germans did, but you should think about the irony of what happened in the Holocaust: a people who for 2,000 years had claimed racial superiority over every other nation (and Talmudic Jews still do) were the victim of a paganistic power claiming racial superiority over every other nation .. .
My Jewish Trad friend (a sedevacantist by the way Vermont / Tom!) sees the Holocaust as an act of God’s permissive will, designed to bring the Jews back down to earth, so to speak.
Why do I mention this? Well, we DO have to tread carefully. But that shouldn’t stop Catholics from repeating what other posters have already stated above – the traditional teaching of the Magisterium is that the Old Covenant was fulfilled, taken over by, the New and therefore is definitively over.
This is one of the key areas where the experience of the Second World War directly influenced the thinking of the New Theologians who triumphed at Vatican II. Struggling to understand how a Christian nation could have done such a thing, they threw the baby out with the bathwater and entered into a minefield of error.
The problem wasn’t with the constant Magisterial teaching of the Church, but with their belief that Germany was a Christian nation; or that the Nazis were Christian men. They weren’t, they were devils, and two of my Uncles were killed fighting them.
Sweep:
The revelations from Pennsylvania (soon to be joined by the State of New York and Nebraska, who are to start a Grand Jury along the same lines) show very clearly that your many years of work in this field have been well-spent. Thank you for your service, as you Yankees say. Clearly you were fighting the battle against the homosexual predators well before anyone else commentating here and I for one have learned a lot from your posts. Thank you.
It’s high time to jettison such cucky concerns with “treading carefully” concerning the perfidious Jews. Instead, it’s time to go on the unbridled and relentless offensive against these toxic destroyers.
If only leading Catholics would attack the perfidious Jews with the same energy as the Orthodox Brother Nathanael at his priceless channel:
https://www.youtube.com/user/zionget/playlists
……….a deeper knowledge of the mind of the Church…as expressed in her long litany of Magisterial communications aimed at pronouncing the most compelling truths, or exposing the most immediate perils and averting certain impending disasters;
+ St. Gregory the Great writing in ‘Epistulae’ around 591AD, said that Jews were not to be granted full liberty due to their frequent use of such liberties to undermine the faith;
+ Honorius I, at the Council of Toledo in 638, said that the Church must make action against Jewish perfidy;
+ Leo VII gave permission for the expulsion of Jews from part of Germany because of their constant and relentless attacks there against Catholics;
+ Innocent III denounced Jews practicing usury against Christians of Nevers, France;
+ Gregory IX found it necessary to order the confiscation of all copies of the ‘Talmud’ due to its sacrilegious and subversive contents: St. Albert the Great was among several theologians to examine the ‘Talmud’ more thoroughly, resulting in the order to burn the book in public; (if the confiscation and burning of the Talmud by the Church gives you a sense of injustice or feeling of revulsion, withhold your judgment….for you will find the unspeakable blasphemies against Jesus Christ, Mary Mother of God, that are contained in that Diabolic Text).
+ Innocent IV again ordered the Talmud to be burned; In the Papal Bull ‘Sicut tua nobis’ (1254), the Pope authorized the expulsion of Jews from Vienna;
+ Clement IV condemned the Talmud in the Bull ‘Damnabili perfidia’;
+ Honorius IV reiterated his predecessors’ condemnation of the Talmud in the 1285 Bull ‘Nimis in partibus anglicanis’;
+ John XXII repeated the same condemnations in 1320 in the Bull ‘Dudum felicis recordationis’;
+ Eugene IV insisted in the Bull ‘Dudum ad nostrum’ on
Jewish segregation given their unrepentant blasphemies and secret plots against the Church;
+ Nicholas V, Calixtus III and Paul II ‘reenacted or renewed the decisions of their predecessors’; (Atila Sinke Guimaraes, ‘Is the Catholic Church Becoming a Branch of the Synagogue?’ http://www.traditioninaction.org );
+ Sixtus IV put forth in the Bull ‘Intenta simper salutis’ of 1484, that Jews and Muslims residing in Spanish territories were to have the least possible social intercourse with Christians in order to protect the faithful from the poisons of these purveyors of heresy and immorality;
+ Leo X took severe actions against Jews in his Brief of 1518, addressed to the Nuncio of Venice;
+ Julius III granted permission for the burning of the Talmud by the holy Inquisition;
+ Paul IV took decisive actions against the Jews in the Bull ‘Cum nimis absurdum’ in order ‘to defend the integrity of the Faith’ and ‘prevent Jews from dominating Catholics’;
+ Pius IV in 1569 added the Talmud to the Index Librorum Prohibitorum (The Index of Forbidden Books);
+ Pius V enacted the Bull ‘Hebraeorum gens’ forcefully repudiating the Jewish practice of usury, theft, prostitution, divinization, sorcery and witchcraft. “By a decree of February 26, 1569, St. Pius V expelled the Jews from the Pontifical States, since, in addition to the mentioned crimes, the Jews spied for the Muslims and supported Islamic plans of conquest that endangered all Christendom. In this Brief, he said: ‘We know that this most perverse people have always been the cause and seed-bag of almost all heresies.’ (Atila Sinke Guimaraes, ‘Is the Catholic Church Becoming a Branch of the Synagogue?’ http://www.traditioninaction.org );
+ Gregory XIII in his Brief of 1581, ‘Antiqui Judaeorum’, issued a grave warning against the false conversion of Jews as cover for the undermining the Church from within;
+ Clement VIII in the 1593 Bull ‘Cum Hebraeorum’ denounced the Talmud once again, and strongly urged preachers to stress Jewish conversions;
+ Urban VIII in 1628 AD, once more anathematized the Jewish crime of usury, this time in Portugal;
+ Benedict XIV in 1751, reaffirmed the Papal condemnation of the Talmud;
+ Benedict XIV promulgated on June 14, 1751 ‘A Quo Primum’, on Jews and Christians living together in the same places;
+ Pius VI in 1775 issued two edicts repeating and reinforcing his immediate predecessor’s directives concerning the criminal activities of revolutionary Jews;
+ Bl. Pius IX in his speech given in 1871, upon having lost control of the Papal States, strongly condemned anticlerical Jews of Rome for their part in the revolutions responsible for this loss of temporal power;
+ Leo XIII publicly condemned Jews, Freemasons and anatchists as the chief enemies of the Church; He reiterated the fact of seditious Jewry’s anti-christian continuity down the centuries and sounded many a call to arms against some of Judaism’s deadliest fronts (Freemasonry, socialism, communism, democracy, predator capitalism, Americanism, the rights of man);
+ The year 1900 saw St. Pius X express high praise for the book, ‘Americanism and the Anti-Christian Conspiracy,’ by the eminent Msgr. Henri Delassus, which book spared no effort in ripping the mask off the Judaic-Masonic-Americanist plot against the Catholic Church and Christian civilization. During his pontificate he made it vividly clear to Zionist leaders that Jews had no moral right to the Holy Land and that, as pope, he could not in any way sanction their invasion and occupation of Palestine.
+ Pius XI in his unfinished, unpublished encyclical of 1938 on Judaism ‘Humani Generis Unitas’ while rightly denouncing anti-Semitism, also denounced the intrigues and schemes of the Jews;
+ Pius XII, ‘Menti Nostrae, Apostolic exhortation to the clergy of the entire world, 1950 said; “it is the chief cut of the supreme pastorship as pope to do Our untmost to help make the works of pastors, and priests daily more efficacious in encouraging the faithful to avoid evil, to overcome dangers and to acquire perfection. This is all the more in our days when people and nations….are suffering in the depths of their souls while the enemies of Catholicism, becoming bolder….are striving with hate and subtle snares to separate men from God and Jesus Christ.”
+ Pope Gregory XIII warned Catholics in 1581 that the Jewish attitude towards Our Lord had not changed: “The sovereign pontiffs, ever anxious for the conversion the the Jews, have received them kindly, have graciously allowed them to dwell among their own subjects and have always striven with pious zeal to draw them to the light of truth. In addition, they have helped them to secure the necessities of life, have forbidden all to injure or insult them and to their benevolence have bestowed many privileges upon them for their protection. The Jews however, in no way softened by these benefits, and with their ancient anti-Christian attitude unchanged, do not cease, in their synagogues and everywhere…..TO RAGE AGAINST OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST NOW GLORIOUSLY REIGNING IN HEAVEN. Moved by an intense hatred of the members of Christ, they continue to plan horrible crimes against the Christian religion with daily increasing audacity….’
+ Cardinal Wojtyła explained to Fr. Maliński during the Council that the new idea of the People of God had changed the regard of the Church for the other religions. From now on, ‘the attitude of the Church is based on the recognition of spiritual values, both human and Christian, contained in religions such as Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism…and here Judaism occupies in a place all by itself.’ In 1980 during his trip to Germany “In the declaration on the relations of the Church with Judaism of April this year, the bishops of West-Germany have broken new ground with their statement ‘whoever meets Jesus Christ, meets Judaism.’ I wish wish to make those words mine as well……”
His pontifical programme faithfully puts his conciliar positions into practice…for his successors, as is visible today…..’
In Christian justice and charity we must, to the extent grace and our particular state permits, seek, pray, work and sacrifice for the acceptance by the Jewish people of THE JEWISH MESSIAH, HOLY REDEEMER OF ISRAEL, SECOND PERSON OF THE BLESSED TRINITY + JESUS THE CHRIST, GOD AND MAN. KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS! A final solution, to the Jewish problem…..
Jesus Maria Joseph I love Thee, save souls!
And here you have it, both pope Benedict XVI and pope John Paul II taught contrary to the dogma Extra Ecclesia Nulla Solus! Then they told the followers of Fr. Feeney, to be in full communion with us who deny the dogma of Extra Ecclesia Nulla Solus. You must agree that the dogma you believe you are defending by insisting on a subjective interpretation of it, may be interpreted with it’s actual objective interpretation, but you don’t have to renounce your subjective interpretation of it! If they are material heretics, it can’t be because of ignorance of the dogma they teach contrary to. Perhaps they are absent minded, or perhaps they are mush minded, as Bishop Williamson would argue modernists are! One Covenant, 2 forms, is mush mindedness!
“Wow! Benedict actually stated that the Old Covenant, the ongoing validity of which the conciliar church has been tirelessly reassuring the Jews for decades on end, now has been replaced!”
Looks to me like he is only pointing out St. Paul said it was replaced!?!
“all of which he [St. Paul] sums up under the keyword ‘first covenant’ which now has been replaced by the final ‘new’ covenant.”
Same Covenant 2 forms is fine?!? But the original form does not merit salvation for Jews according to the dogma Extra Ecclesia Nulla Solus! A valiant effort to save a couple of butts, but it doesn’t fly!
Speaking of the Jews, there is a good article here that everyone should read. A logical perspective on why so many Jews just so happen to be so heavily involved in a lot of suspect areas. And it all makes rational sense in a very twisted kind of way. But long story short, it is as if the Jews tend to be responsible for getting the ball rolling on many of the messes they find themselves in, after taking us along for the ride.
The Culture of Critique reviewed by Stanley Hornbeck
http://www.heretical.com/miscellx/culturec.html
A much more coherent rational explanation than most of the hyperbolic conspiratorial views out there.
2 Covenants co-existing…
2 Rites of Mass co-existing…
2 ‘Popes’ co-existing…
2 ‘churches co-existing…
It’s like cell division by mitosis.
Not surprising such things can be so easily accepted by men who succumbed to the HERESY of Charles Darwin. For them, this is how the Church and God ‘evolve.’
Well natural selection works both ways, buddy. The VII/Novus Ordo will end up the vestigial organ to be discarded.
Nature tends to be a stickler for the Traditional Laws.
I might actually agree with you Smeary that it is evil to blame Jews maybe you are married to one like Louise (I know many who are good people so it’s ok) anyway Benedict Carterbatch Stalin also agrees. Why did Louis write this? Well maybe he doesn’t like Jews but I don’t think so because he is also maried to one and not Anti-Semite. So maybe point taken.
Again I am shocked I’that I agree with Smeary but you must admit that Wiliamsons is also a homosexual and also Supports homosexuals. I don’t know why you hate homosexuals so much, maybe and probably you are one who’s selfloathing homosexuals Whatever, you say what you want, I’m agreeing with SmearInTheFilrh here.
Yeah right and what has Bro Nathaniel accomplished? Apparently the same thing all those encyclicals posted above have.
My question is this………How did any of this help to make us more Christian when we now see the Apostasy right in front of our noses?
…….AG Shapiro did not commit those horrific blasphemous criminal abuses on the victims .Priests did and the Bishops knew it and just transferred them to do it again and again. Why? Because under Pope JP2 the Saint , Ratzinger sent instructions to them to do just that.
So what are we to do with the Jewish problems of the past and problem at hand? Take up arms and fight them? What are we to do with the institutional Church leaders? March to DC and send petitions? NOPE ! We pray the Rosary daily and Read the Word of God and beg Him to convert the Apostates or scatter them rendering them the useless fools they are.
The Jewish leaders killed Christ . Did Jesus tell His Apostles to go get them with swords or to pray for the Holy Ghost to come convert and clean house?
Rome gets destroyed in the Apocalypse and that was then and is Gods Will , just as Jerusalem got destroyed 70 years after Christ.
They have been busy destroying the Faith for quite some time in the Vatican so it stands to reason history will repeat itself at some point.
Oh and yes Skorka is advising Borgolio.
Much appreciated TGS but all praise and thanksgiving goes to Heaven alone because our Heavenly Friends really do answer prayers even when we do not realize at first that they are heard and have been responded to . God’s thoughts are not ours but He is listening and loves us so much !
My only answer to all of this is pray pray pray constantly. When time allows more formal prayers but ejaculations throughout the day are prayers of and for Faith too. “Jesus Christ , Son of God have mercy on me the first among sinners.”
“Jesus Christ , Lover of mankind save your inheritance!” Invoke the Angels too all day long because the evil is getting more desperate.
“Treading carefully” with the blood-soaked Christ-killers for at least the last 73 years has enabled and emboldened them. They now run amok in every field, buttressed by the rampant white ethnomasochist cuck terror of being called NAAAAAAAAAAAZZZZZIIII for recognizing their radically disproportionate and toxic influence in nearly every field. But we’re not supposed to notice this and many other things, because as Steve Sailer says, “political correctness is a war on noticing.”
You’re right Melanie, the laity are not to be blamed. On the other hand the Shepherds of Holy Mother Church are the ones to whom Christ the mandate to Shepherd His Church and it is they who have the obligation for teaching and protecting the Sheep. So, the laity ought to be able to put their trust in those Shepherds. That is the way Christ established His Church and that is the way it was throughout history, until, that is, our modern times.
Now, just as the frog does not realize he is being put to death as the water he’s in is slowly heated to boiling and eventually kills the frog, so it is in the Church since Our Lady’s first warning in the 19th Century. Actually, it could be said that it all started in 1517 with Luther and those of his ilk. But the fact that we “are in hot water (pardon the pun) today cannot be due to the laity! For, long before VCII the plan of Satan, who hates the Catholic Church and wishes to destroy It, began to be laid.
We must understand that Satan is much more patient than we puny human beings and because he is a spirit that will never die, he is in no rush to carry out his design little step by little step. Then too, he must use human instruments in order to carry out his designs. And he knows from experience that it is easier to work from within the Church than executing an attack from the outside.
Of course, Christ and His Blessed Mother, knowing the plans of Satan, but without interfering with the free will of all who possess it, will lend their help in the form of prophecy. The first notice of what the Church was in for was given to Melanie and Maximin in 1846. The full contents of the Message given at that time was slow in being publicized, and it was difficult to apply to a time line or period of time, what was said to the children, except for except for taking God’s name in vain and not keeping holy the Lord’s Day, which was recognized as happening at the time of the Apparitions. As for where in the future the rest of the prophecy fit, it was anyone’s guess.
The next “clue” to the Mystery of Iniquity’s machinations was said to have taken place on 13 October 1884. It was after saying his Mass, while making his Thanksgiving, that he had a vision of demonic spirits gathering over Rome (the Vatican?) and then heard a conversation between Christ and Satan. Supposedly, Satan was seeking for more time and power in order to destroy the Church and Christ gave His permission as God had permitted Satan to do what he wanted to Job, except to could not take Job’s life. Christ then allowed, so the story goes, Satan 100 years to carry out his destruction.
By this time rationalism and modernism were infesting the Church, and the holy Pope, St. Pope Pius X, did what he could to warn the Faithful of the dangers filtering into the Church through his Encyclical against Modernism–though he had to admit that having sent the modernists underground, they would once again surface.
Once again heaven intervened, this time in 1917, from 13 May — 13 October, when Our Lady appeared at Fatima, the same year as the Communist Revolution which was nothing short of demonic. The message was clearer and more urgent, asking specifically for prayers, especially the Rosary, and sacrifices for the conversion of sinners, for Devotion to her Immaculate Heart and the Consecration of Russia, while warning about so many souls going to hell, the errors of Russia spreading throughout the world and the annihilation of nations.
Still, the leaders continued to rely on their own natural power and worldly understanding of matters. It is true that the Popes were aware of the presence of the modernist thinking within the Church and did publish encyclicals pointing out and condemning various errors and heresies. But they failed to realize the machinations of Satan behind all that was happening. So Satan was doing his best to see that the Church was infiltrated with heretics and perverts of every kind, making use of the Communists who were demonic to the core, the Masons, who worshiped Satan, and the Jews.
It was all done very slowly and according to a well developed strategy. Since the Church is a priestly organization, candidates for the destruction of the Church had to be sent through seminaries, had to work their way up the ladder to fill the most important posts, especially, the position of Rector of Seminaries, heads of the major Dioceses and Roman Offices. All of this was done very quietly, very discretely and very slowly so as not to raise any suspicions. And those men were experts at feigning model Churchmen, but at the same time undermining every aspect of the Church’s tradition.
By 1960, most of the Bishops, Priests and Religious in the Church were ignorant of or had been enamored by the new thinking, totally oblivious to how bad it really was. Yes, there were a few who understood what was going on, for example, Cardinals Ottavani, Bacci and Siri; even some theologians and lay intellectuals has some idea as to the danger to the faith that existed within the Church. However, even they could not realize how widespread was the rot, the filth, the demonic influence. And to this day, very, very few really grasp the presence of the demonic within the Church. And those who do understand are the ones who are attacked most viciously.
And this is true about Benedict. After 25 years as Prefect of the Holy Office and 8 years as an ACTIVE POPE, as well as having knowledge of the Third Secret, he is THE ONE individual who grasps the depth of the problem; he knew how Satan works behind the scenes, through the media and a myriad of networks. Benedict knows how the demonic cabal within the Vatican was preventing him from doing what he knew should be done and attempting to force him to do what he knew was evil. And because he didn’t cooperate it is my positIon that they gave him an ultimatum to get out.
And what he did was to keep the Papacy from the control of Satan–through his (Satan’s) stooge–by maintaining the Office, the Power of the Papacy. For if Satan in fact were able, through his stooge having been elected Pope, to promulgate and enforce and change Officially the perennial teachings and practices of the Church through encyclicals, Apostolic Exhortations, Motu proprios, the Catechism it would be NOTHING LESS THAN A MOCKERY OF CHRIST’S WORDS TO PETER THAT “THE GATES OF HELL SHALL NOT PREVAIL AGAINST IT (THE CHURCH)”.
Unfortunately, people, and I mean the Clergy, Cardinals, Bishops, Priests, and the Laity, intellectuals, professors, bloggers and the simple faithful have no clue as to how Satan operates, especially in these times when as Bishop Sheen stated he has been given a long, long rope. And that is not surprising, for these are unprecedented and is cannot be expected that they would know. However, I do not excuse the Prelates, for as Shepherds they have the OBLIGATION to look into the matter, but even they seem to be clueless. Exorcists would be the ones who could have some grasp of the operations of Satan, but they are quite busy with individuals and groups and hence without the opportunity to study the situation within the Church itself; although one Exorcist did say that the Vatican ought to be exorcised.
Furthermore, it is Satan’s will to have Francis recognized as Pope for as long as he can. For the longer Francis is allowed to do destroy the Church, the more souls he will take to hell!!! And in order to keep the wool over the eyes of the Faithful, he must see to it that Benedict be considered ignominious, both in the eyes of the enemies of the Church as well as in the eyes of those who are Faithful. For when it is discovered that Benedict is truly Pope, it is then that Francis will be put out of business. So, Benedict is made out to be the bad guy, and the press takes every opportunity to see and reproach Benedict for something wrong in every incident or article that is attributed to him. I hereby charge that all those who berate and reproach Benedict, after having keep the Papacy out of the hands of Satan, are in fact working in Stan’s favor.
And there can be no question about Satan being involved in the Church. RadTrad Thomist (http://radtradthomist.chojnowski.me/ 2018/08/is-this-why-they-needed-to-get-rid-of.html) has posted an article from OnePeterFive by Maike Hickson where she relates what Padre Pio told Fr. Amorth, (RIP), former head Exorcise of Rome: “It is Satan who has been introduced into the bosom of the Church and within a very short time will come to rule a false Church.” Fr. Malachi Martin was saying this very thing, but doing so in a way whereby he wouldn’t violate his oath of silence on the Third Secret.
Francis MUST be recognized for what he is, SATAN’S STOOGE, and he must be rejected. Only then will we be able to reestablish unity, order and integrity in Faith and Morals.
The Culture of Critique by Kevin MacDonald is indeed indispensable reading, as is his The Occidental Observer site, along with his speeches and interviews of him on Youtube.
Dr. MacDonald enjoys the tremendous distinction of being branded RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACCCCISSSSS by the perfidious ((($PLC))).
As does E. Michael Jones, whose The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit is also essential reading, along with his videos on Youtube such as the Goy Guide to World History and much else. The monumental book just mentioned is most cheaply bought through his Culture Wars site, as (((Amazon))) either jacks up the price or makes it unavailable.
This schizophrenia is consistent with the demonic infusion manifested in the Judas Council and its aftermath, as the devil is both one and many (“I am legion”).
Speaking of Fr Feeney one of my dearest personal friends was Mother Theresa (RIP) of St Anne’s House in Stillriver ,Mass. she was one of the original Feeneyites and cared for him till his death. He is buried on the property.
We stayed there several times and Mother who had cancer and was still working the farm ,would take me back and we would have some private chat time. She explained just how on the behest of Joe Kennedy ,Cdl Cushing was behind Fr’s so called excommunication that never really was .
Kennedy’s Jewish business partners were ticked off their Harvard children were being converted at the St Benedict Ctr in Harvard Square by listening to Fr Feeney and they asked Joe to put an end to him. So he asked his buddy Cushing to do it. Some of Fr Feeney’s Religious traveled to the Vatican to see if the excommunication was approved . No such record existed.
Before he died ,sitting in his wheelchair , Fr Feeney was visited by the Local Ordinary just for reassurance instigated by the Ssisters. The bishop asked him to recite the Creed. He recited the Athanasian Creed by heart.
One thing Fr Feeney also stated whenever he taught someone the necessity of that particular dogma was ,”Of course we also believe in God’s Mercy.”
These men need to go !
http://stumblingblock.org/?p=12546
Williamson is not just an enabler of homosexuals, but a supporter of the blasphemous, homo-erotic book “The Poem of the Man God” by Maria Valtorta. His blatherings on any topic have little relevance to anything authentically Catholic. (Did we forget to mention that he is actually a convert from the fake “Anglican” “church”)?
Christ had his Judas; Lefebvre had his Williamson.
Nothing says “authentic Traditional Catholic” more than a dimwit who can’t even spell basic dogmas in Latin. “Salus”, not “Solus”.
“Solus” merely reflects the fact that you are probably a Protestant convert. They’re the ones obsessed with “Sola”s.
The more I see of this poor, misguided gentleman, the more I am convinced that he is either mentally ill, or a bot spewing catchphrases.
Get thee to a confessional, “Alphonsus”. You merely bring shame and infamy to a Doctor of the Church whose name you will never be worthy to share.
As for Sailer Boy, McDonald and the silly scrivener Eugene M. Jones, they are on the way to the same Hell that their master, Revilo P. Oliver, already inhabits. They still have time to repent, but my guess is that they will reject that offer due to their overweening pride (see St. Matthew 12: 32).
Alphonsus:
Any ppost that contains strings of letters as per your ‘racisss” above automatically does not get read by me; and no doubt is ignored by many others who want to retain their sanity.
Just a word of advice – drop that style of writing. It makes you look like a foaming at the mouth nutter.
Oh, and another word of advice on the writing front: drop the “cuck” and “cucky”. It’s rude, ugly, meaningless to most readers. I have two degrees from one of the oldest universities in the world and I don’t have a clue what it means. Find another way of getting your point across.
Very interesting! My American Jewish Trad friend was very closely attached to the St Benedict Centre in Harvard Square for many years and he did mention that Fr. Feeney had great success with converting Jewish students.
It was Cardinal Ratzinger who affirmed that the Feeneyite interpretation of EENSE was not heretical. There is still a convent I believe attached to the Feeneyite position which is in good standing with the Church and their local Ordinary.
Yes, I accept this analysis. Would you agree with me Fr. Belland that it is at least possible, at the most probable or highly likely, that Bergoglio is the False Prophet of St. John’s Apocalypse?
I can not. Benedict was one of “Satan’s stooges” as a periti at the Council. He is every bit as responsible and part of this Satanic plan. He just did a better job of appearing “traditional” of playing the traditional, true pope role.
Benedict’s resignation is also part of Satan’s plan. Because, as long as folks believe that he is a true pope (and not Francis), then they believe that the Vatican II church is the Catholic Church….that it’s just Francis who is the bad guy. And that is exactly what has happened. It’s perfectly planned!
Granted there are those who believe that a true pope can be both the Head of the True Church and False Church, but there is no support for that in Catholic teaching. Quite honestly I find that belief blasphemous at best.
YES at last the Professor and Stalin have had their eyes opened and are telling racist Alphonse to be quiet. I also dislike Jones. And Stalin “cuck” you can find on urbandictionary it’s a vulgar term and one used by bad and crazy people, and I will not repeat what it means here but you are right that it needs to stop.
Not all Jews are our enemies – not even the majority of them, and not even all Israelis, but only the GUILTY ones; those FEW that have long plotted the downfall of Christianity, and those of a somewhat larger number who became materially complicity in the obliteration of all things Christian (Catholic), knowingly or not. For the better part of centuries, ever since the Church emerged from the catacomgs after two centuries of unending persecution, Jews have been in the forefront of the anti-supernatural movement…….
Moses Hess, 1812-1875, philosopher, socialist, communist and Zionist. His biggest contribution to the anti-Christian Revolution was as the ‘Red Rabbi’ who serve as a mentor to both Karl Marx and Frederick Engels. He wrote in 1862: ‘Papal Rome symbolizes to the Jews an inexhaustible well of poison.’ (‘The Demons of Judaism,’ Dossier on the Antichristian Revolution).
This is primarily due either to ignorance or cowardice on the part of the majority of faithful, and negligence or a false prudence on the part of the pastors and lay leaders – a prudence so disordered, extreme and unCatholic that it either allows for no militant lay apostolate as the Church mandates, or it strongly discourages it…….Conservatives and patriots, but particularly Catholics CANNOT KEEP AVOIDING THIS COMBAT as ‘they’ have been doing for so long. Knowledge is imperative; knowing one’s enemy essential to living the life of grace to the fullest rather than half-heartedly.
Pope Benedict XV wrote that the ‘present day circumstances demand this action most urgently……they (our enemies) will fling themselves into the struggle all the more boldly, the less they find Catholics ready, defend themselves, and the faith.’ (Benedict XV, ‘Accepimus vos’, letter to Columbian bishops, Aug. 1, 1916).
Yes that was Mother T’s convent ! But before she died she called me and thanked me for being a ture friend and she also told me they had been infiltrated. she said a Fr McLucas had spent two weekks there and she did not trust him and did not like that he was taking long walks with two of her postulants both of whom left within months of his departure. She also told me there were women who were showing up wanting to stay and become nuns and they were only finding out after allowing them to stay that there was mental illness involved.
She told me when they would go into Boston to shop or for Physician exams ,during the time Fr Feeney was alive, they were spit on by Jewish people they would pass on the street.
But Frank Walker in his video below last night has it right.
So if AD Shapiro hates the church and SNAP hates the Church let them hate the church because these Bishops and priests are NOT the Church and obviously even they can be used by God to accomplish His Will too ! Donahue of the Catholic League is NOT the Church either and I was quite surprised to see gloriatv reporting his screed too against the GJ Reports and the elected officials that launched them…….without stating the word “Jew” it was implied.
I wanted to vomit when they mentioned Monsignore Lynn as if he was punished for nothing really.
Mon Lynn was Cardinal Bevilaqua’s stoogie who shredded the internal secret abuse files on his order.
He was also a frequent dinner guest at a NY rectory in Merchantville ,hosted by a flaming phony Dicoesan Trad in image only pastor. This priest would invite other priests to his very expensive dinner parties complete with champagne and lobster in order to do his Marilyn Monroe impressions for the other clerics. He would have the rectory staff join the festivities ONLY long enough for his “show”. Wiggling his shoulders and sliding up and down on the door jam he breathlessly would sing “Happy Birthday Mr President”.
Lynn was overheard screaming to his a hole buddies ( pardon for my husband’s descriptive label of them, but it IS apropo) , “I’m not taking the fall for Bevilaqua !”
I was the one who received calls from rectory personal who asked for explanations as to what he meant along with detailed accounts of the happenings at this MOST conservative parish where I knew Catholic laity were actually moving to be near just so they could attend this “holy” priest’s
church. Yes the pastor also had a boyfriend and according to the nuns and rectory employees they would host evenings for parish youth whom the priest thought might have a vocation.
It was ONLY when the nuns left and my rectory friends left having had enough of the gay cabal, that I began hearing that some wise parents whose child was aware of predator priests, that there altar boy son wanted to stop being an altar server because he realized he was being groomed.His father was a lawyer and he felt comfortable telling his parents.
Meanwhile the rest of the laity continued to flock there.
But if you breathed a word of warning ,you were whispered to be evil or screamed at outright as having “attacked a holy priest”.
It was Fr Malachi Martin who first told me that there were “infiltrators all over including in the SSPX”, and he was correct and yes he did love Traditional minded families despite all the professional “katholics” writing to the contrary.
Ever wonder why HE exited the Jesuits and the Vatican?
………..oh that’s right, just to sell books.
Shaprio and Snap hate the church ? The devil swallows his own. It is NOT the Church founded by Christ anymore and hasn’t been for a long time.
We should never worship priests ONLY Our Triune God.
Respect is one thing ,but worshiping them as if they are Jesus at all times and everywhere is just plain stupid and prideful on the part of the laity. Understand Melanie?
The Great Stalin, you are one who is humble, careful and and thoughtful, and I appreciate your post. However, I personally don’t think, that Bergoglio is the False Prophet spoken of by St. John. I say this for two reasons. One is because the False Prophet is considered by many really to be what his name implies, namely, a prophet. Hence, he is has some power, not Supernatural Power but demonic, whereby he is able to deceive people into to thinking he is indeed prophesying. But I don’t think, or at least have not the impression either that Bergoglio is even trying to prophesy or that people really believe that he is a true prophet–and this is where I credit you for your prudence. Secondly, I believe it was Thomas Walsh, the historian who interviewed Lucia and asked her where we were in the Apocalypse and she answered answered that we were in the in the time described by Chapters 8-13, but the Great Prophet is mentioned until Chapter 16. In other words the False Prophet will come at time when the end of the world is near at hand.
We are not at that time yet, however, for Our Lady has promised an era of peace, the Jews are yet to be converted and Bergoglio has not shown himself to be the one who can solve all seemingly unsolvable problems; on the contrary, he is only creating problems. Hope this helps. God bless and Our Lady protect you always.
Correction ..that should be NJ Rectory above.
As far as Solus vs Sallus . Catholicism IS based on Tradition and SCRIPTURE. In our state I was asked how it was Catholic support groups were allowed to also fall under the Protestant run state group when in other states they were at odds with the Protestant groups.
Answer. I had along conversation with the guy who founded the state home school protection group about Solus Scriptora and explained that the Catholic Church is also based on the Word of God only we interpret some passages differently. He agreed and that ended the animosity , at least on the state level.
Which is one reason I saw first hand how fueling old fires of hatred does not work. “Be wise as serpents but harmless as doves.” , according to Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
The years subsequent to the Second Vatican Council saw Rome buckle under to covert and overt Jewish pressure as well, again and again:
+ By having entered into the Vatican-Moscow Agreement at the Council’s commencement and the Balamand Agreement some years after, these treasonous pacts which effectively destroyed the Church’s once strong opposition to Judaic Communism are still in full effect whereby Rome continues to this day to collaborated with rather than inspire and lead the combat against this monstrous evil, still refusing to perform and consecration of Russia commanded by the Mother of Christ;
+ By altering the Good Friday Prayer to appease Jewish ultra-sensitivities;
+ By reconsidering the canonization of Edith Stein, a Jewish convert;
+ By watering down the Passion Play at Oberammergau, which upheld since 1633 the traditional version of Jewish responsibility for the Crucifixion;
+ By dropping the canonization cause of Queen Isabella la Catolica for having deported 400,000 Jews from Spain;
+ By forcibly expelling Carmelite Sisters from the convent in the vicinity of the former Auschwitz concentration camp;
+ By putting on hold, indefinitely, the beatification of Fr. Dehon for anti-Semitic suspicions;
+ By successfully covering up the murder of John Paul II by the Judaic Masonic Propaganda II Lodge of Italy;
+ By postponing the cause of sainthood of Pius XII under the ludicrous argument that he did not do enough to help persecuted Jews during WWII;
+ By John Paul II’s visit to the Great Synagogue of Rome where he addressed the Jews as ‘our elder brothers in the faith;’
+ By slowing the process and rethinking the cause of beatification of Blessed Pius IX, another staunch opponent the Judaic-Masonic Revolution;
+ By granting the Church’s full diplomatic recognition of the illegitimate terror regime headquartered in Tel-Aviv;
+ By papal visitation of the synagogue and interfaith worship with Jews on several occasions – Rome in 19861 and 2010, and New York and Israel in 2009;
And speaking of canonizations….. John XXIII, John Paul II to the communion of known saints, the coming canonization of Paul VI, and in the making of Benedict XVI……is nothing less then a victory for Judaism’s anti-Christian Revolution……
FOR LUCIFER FEARS HER (CHURCH) HEAVENLY POWER AS MUCH AS HE HATES HER PURE HEART, FOR SHE IS DIVINE, AND HER HEAD IS OUR LORD AND SAVIOUR JESUS CHRIST!
Dear Professor Q, I’m sorry but as the Professor you claim to be, you surly don’t know logic, which is the basis of any proper reasoning. There’s nothing in the misspelling of “Salus” that can indicate, of itself, that someone is a “former Protestant” Your Charity has turned as cold as your “wisdom” is erroneous. God bless and Our Lady protect in these demonic times.
I have in my possession a very old copy of Thomas a’Kempis’ ,”My Imitation of Christ”. did you know after it was published a Bishop took credit for the writing but was later proved to be a false claim? Did you know it almost reads like a completely different book than what Tan sold?
I was once friendly with an elderly Cistercian monk and attended daily mass at a little chapel dedicated to OL of Fatima on the monk’s property.The chapel was under the auspices of the Italian Superior and not the local Ordinary as was the church built to service the Diocesan Faithful.
When this elderly monk spoke to me privately he NEVER raised his eyes to look at me in the face. This was once the practice taught to priests to avoid the near occasion of sin and familiarity with women . He never addressed me by my name ether, instead, he always called women he knew were married as ,”Mommy”.
That was the teaching and practice of old and is in the book written
by Thomas a’Kempis. How about that? Priests gazed down when speaking to a woman to protect both their own virtue and that of the woman’s.
Since then , I have seen and heard priests clamor to be private and paid Spiritual Directors and women who brag about having them as such.
Spiritual Direction was always given in the confessional except in very rare cases and we were separated from the priest by a wall and a little screen .
I wonder if the child in the PA GJ Report from the Diocesan’s own secret files who was asked to perform oral sex and refused ,then being bound by the priest who punished him by violating him with a 7 ” crucifix , was in a Confessional separated from the priest with a wall?
I wonder if ssa men accepted into the seminaries keep their eyes to the floor at all times to protect their own virtue of chastity?
You can hold on to your hats with this little tidbit too. attack me if you will. But the ORIGINAL Promulgation of the NO was not quite what was described in the “Ottiviani Intervention”. Mother Teresa taught me that too when she sent me to a once very Traditional Benedictine Monastery for Mass.
We were surprised when hearing the Mass chanted in Latin and reading the English on the opposite age just how close it was to the ancient Divine Liturgy of St John Chrysostom and NOTHING comparable to the NO in our local RC parishes. I understood then that the decent V 2 Council Fathers were sold on liturgical and other changes because some were stating there the need to return to many practices of the Early Church . The devil was in the details and sadly they missed the cracks of innovation that opened into gaping fissures in the other documents during the Council.
Personally, I like Henry Makow the Canadian Jewish Prof and inventor of the game “Scruples” quite a bit and have written articles for him. He has made it his mission to teach what the Protocols and Talmud really say and how they have been put into practice.
https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2018/08/the-pennsylvania-truth-john-xxiii-paul.html
Note from a friend for more recent enlightened Catholics……………..
“If you converted or reverted to the Faith during the reign of JP 2 then maybe the strong Pro Life stance of the Catholic Church is what attracted you to, or back to the Faith? Know now that it was used , I repeat USED as a political ploy and that is why, despite it’s veritable undeniable Truth, the present Occupant of the Chair of Peter finds it so easy to downplay.”
They represent Jesus on earth when administering His Sacraments or actually teaching His Word. It IS plain stupid to think they are Jesus Christ or even acting as His Apostle at all times.
It is also HIGHLY stupid not to study and KNOW Christ’s teachings from a clerical only perspective. He gave us a BRAIN and gifts like the ability to read and think which we are required to use !
When I read the Children’s Crusade in “Christ the King Lord of History” by Ann Carroll and saw the parents described as ” pious”I almost lost it ! There is such a thin as false piety and the Catholic laity has been infected with it.
No Catholic should discard their God given common sense because any priest or Prelate ,canonized saint or otherwise, has suggested they do it because THEY “…. represent Christ.” !
IMHO for example the people who join Opus Dei have done just that.
Re :Williamson ……I first realized some laity and priests in SSPX also did just that when I heard Fr Hewko from the pulpit ( friends at the time with Williamson) say that “Hitler saved Catholic Art”……Really? He and Goebells were in the business of STEALING Catholic AND Jewish Art. We asked him exactly why he did not specify that and received a confused shrug for an answer.
Bishop Williamson is a homo?!? Please fill me in. How depressing. I thought he was the last good one left?! Is this true? What proof is there? What makes you say this?
Fr.
It’s better you know this now.
Prof. Q is a known troll and heretic here who shows up from time to time to derail the conversation with nothing other than personal attacks on everyone who does not buy into the ‘NooSphere Church of Becoming’ party line. And he’s had his ass handed to him several times already in the past.
What you are seeing here is pretty much the extent of his rational ability to ‘dialogue.’
He/She/It won’t change. Best to ignore it.
Please link to where you got all this.
Thanks, Johnno, for the information; I was not aware of Prof. Q(ueer?). And you’re right that it’s best just to leave him alone. God bless and Our Lady protect you.
The cucks are getting their feathers ruffled. Excellent. They must be shaken from their stupor.
To learn about cuckery, see the following links.
Warning: these will jar you. They’ll most likely spur you, in accord with your suicidally xenophilic white ethnomasochist conditioning, to cry RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACCCCIIIISSSS and take refuge in your foul fantasy of being eternally and publicly gang raped by Paco, Jamal, Abdul, Wong, and Shekelstein as the ultimate form of virtue signaling. Pitiful. Just pitiful.
Hence you must read the following repeatedly. Only then might you cut through your cuck conditioning. Steel yourselves, cucks!
Cuckservatism: The Cuckoo In The Conservative Movement’s Nest http://www.vdare.com/articles/cuckservatism-the-cuckoo-in-the-conservative-movements-nest
An Open Letter to Cuckservatives
http://www.amren.com/news/2015/07/an-open-letter-to-cuckservatives/
Definitely read this one at least 1,000 times, cucks, until your reflexive squeaks of RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACCCCIIISSSS fall silent.
The Cuckservative Phenomenon http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2015/07/the-cuckservative-phenomenon/
Unmasking the Cucks http://www.amren.com/features/2016/01/unmasking-the-cucks/
Cuckservative
https://www.urbandictionary.com/author.php?author=Alphonsus%20Jr.%20
CatholiCuck
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=CatholiCuck&defid=12005800
Are there any limits to the extent of 1) your words, 2) your connections, or 3) your secret knowledge?
Yes, it’s true: I’m convinced that those whom The Remnant calls Neo-Catholics should instead be called CatholiCucks.
First, a taxonomy of liberals:
-Avowed liberals (they know they’re liberals and flaunt it)
-Disguised liberals (i.e., neocons; they know they’re liberals but hide it)
-Unconscious liberals (i.e., cuckservatives; they’re liberals but think they’re conservatives; their lust for mainstream respectability is insatiable)
Again, as you know, some trads have taken to calling those who believe they’re conservatives but are nevertheless infected with liberalism the following: Neo-Catholics or NeoCaths. In other words, NeoCaths are unconscious liberals or, to clear up the redundancy of the term unconscious liberals, it may be better to describe them as unconsciously liberal.
This irritates me because neoconservatives–the neocons being the inspiration for the “NeoCath” label–aren’t unconscious liberals but are, rather, disguised liberals.
The rise of the term cuckservative in recent years can be helpful in correctly characterizing those otherwise called NeoCatholics. NeoCaths, like cuckservatives in the political realm, are constantly sliding to the left while nonetheless believing that they’re conservatives. They too are possessed by an insatiable lust for mainstream respectability. Moreover, as neocons (i.e., Jews and Judaizers) are the puppet-masters of cuckservatives, Jews and Judaizers are the puppet-masters of those now called Neo-Catholics.
And, like cuckservatives in the political world, NeoCaths are also infected by that supreme plague sweeping the West today, a plague far deadlier than the Black Death of the 14th century; namely, the pathological complex of white ethnomasochist oikophobia and suicidal xenophilia (WEOSX). Consequently they have no problem with, for example, miscegenation; indeed, they extol it. And of course, like cuckservatives (e.g., Glenn “King Cuck” Beck), they malign those who reject it.
Thus I propose that those now called NeoCatholics instead be called CatholiCucks.
Cuck. Such a pitiful, ugly, nauseating word. I believe it perfectly reflects the pitiful perversion of the cuckservative and CatholiCuck phenomenon.
As you can see, The Great Stalin, I don’t give a damn about your two degrees from a de facto dead and putrefying Euro university. I have more. Nor do I care about whether you’re again OFFENDED by my words (as you were in The Remnant comment section a few years back when you squealed RAAAAAAAAACCCCIIISSSS at me for lamenting the stinking Somali colonization of Minnesota).
No “secret knowledge” here Alphonse .
Just paying attention to Catholicism and Catholics most of my
life and I have always been an avid reader trusting totally that the Holy Ghost will lead me to impart what He wants me to learn.
Pray more and learn more.
A history of pedophilia…..a cover up and hushed.
https://www.truthtellers.org/alerts/pedophiliasecret_reprint.html
PEDOPHILIA: THE TALMUD’S DIRTY SECRET
By Rev. Ted Pike
“At 4:30 PM on March 30, 2002, Israeli military forces took over Palestinian TV stations when they occupied Ramallah in the West Bank, immediately shutting them down. The Israeli forces then broadcast pornography over the Al-Watan TV’s transmitter……the Israelis broadcast pornography over two additional Palestinian stations Ammwaj and Al-Sharaq channels. A Palestinian mother of three complained about ‘the deliberate psychological damage caused by these broadcast……the local TV channels has nothing to do with Palestinian program but is being broadcast by the Israeli occupation forces. We urge parents to take precautions.” (excerpt from ‘The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit’, by E. Michael Jones).
What an eye opener was the pilgrimage to the Holy Land (2017)……Bethlehem in Palestine (where ‘et Verbum Caro Factum Est…’), surrounded by a 25ft cement wall, with electric wires on top. Where upon entering Bethlehem, you are greeted by a young men and women……with a machine guns, the Jewish military. Where Christians and Muslims live together, where there’s no hospital, no police, no garbage pick-up regularly…….where one who has eyes to see, sees pornographic ‘bill boards’ advertisements, very ‘sexy’ wedding gowns, and flimsy clothes…….a gift for the Christians and Arabs from Israel…….to people who are trying to survive on bare minimum. How clever is the enemy, for they know that once they poison the heart of the youth, it will keep them away from joining the Palestinian and Christian resistance, from hostile fixation on Israel.
Is there a wonder that from the time, when Moses came down from the Mountain, and upon seeing the abomination of Sodom – Gomorrah, while worshipping the golden calve, in his rage broke the Tablets of 10 Commandments, given by God for the good of the once ‘chosen race.’ Is there a wonder that the enemy of Jesus Christ and His Church……. would do anything in their ‘power from Satan’ to use ‘homosexuality’ to destroy the purity, sacredness, and innocence of the Catholic priesthood? For where there’s no holiness, there’s no fear of God, so they multiply like a plague, under not watchful eyes of the shepherds!
“The final collapse of Jewish resistance to Logos will take place when they have reached the pinnacle of worldly power. AT no time in the past 2000 years have Jews had more power than now. The Jews possess Jerusalem (American Embassy as we speak…..my emphasis) and, according to reports, plan to rebuild the temple, lending credence to the belief the stage is set for that last great battle over who will rule the Jewish soul.” (The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit’, by E.Michael Jones).
FrBelland , is it not that the Jews en masse in Israel will be converted at the actual time Our Lord descends from the clouds upon His Return as His foot touches upon the Mt of Olives which split in two causing a great fissure? Some in despair to leap into that fissure while others immediately recognize Him as their True Messiah?
Or is that just a pious fable?
And BTW Alphonse , is there no end to your use of that vile sounding word?
https://www.dictionary.com/e/slang/cuck/
A timely reminder.
https://akacatholic.com/saint-peter-damian-sodomy-pederasty-and-the-emasculation-of-a-saint-part-i/
Sweepoutthefilth I think you are great. I love the contribution you make to the subject matter. Maybe the hecklers one day will see the light of Christ.
Alphonsus:
I hesitate to say anything in response to your series of posts above as it might cause harm. I do wish you good health and peace, and hope you have the right sort of care.
Sweep:
It’s absoluteky true that the initial Novus Ordo.was very close to the English version of the 1962 Missal, albeit with chunks omitted.
This was done very deliberately, as admitted by Bugnini later, as the Faithful would never have swallowed it otherwise. A further set of Changes came in the early 1970s and thereafter it descended into an almost-complete free for all.
I have seen this too with the monks of the Traditionalist Redemptorists in Britain who loved my old mother (died last year aged 90 and the mother of nine), who they never looked at directly though she was already in her 60s. She thought the world of them.
In the modern Church, eye contact is obligatory.
Your calling someone a dimwit because of a spelling error? I’m glad something like that made you feel superior, good, warm and fuzzy inside, because now you are going to have to experience humility as you find out I am not a protestant convert.
“She explained just how on the behest of Joe Kennedy ,Cdl Cushing was behind Fr’s so called excommunication that never really was”
That is interesting, because I heard it said that Fr. Feeney was the only American Prelate to speak out against the heresy of Americanism, which I believe President John Kennedy was guilty of, though I forget exactly what it was that he the President said that fits the definition of Americanism.
“But the ORIGINAL Promulgation of the NO was not quite what was described in the “Ottiviani Intervention”. Mother Teresa taught me that too when she sent me to a once very Traditional Benedictine Monastery for Mass.”
Fr. Gregory Hesse says the NO was never Promulgated! It’s use was only recommended by Pope Paul VI, I can neither defend him or refute him on that.
Truth is there are problems with the 1955 missal, the 1958 missal, and the 1962 missal, while they don’t constitute a new Rite with a capital R to make them schismatic according to the dogma of Trent and the doctrine of Constance, like the NO does. They were all inspired by liars and blasphemers who hold the Catholic faith in contempt. That was proven by Dr. Carol Byrne, Fr. Cekada can also show that to you. For that reason, we are justified in going back to the 1952 missal. When Rome gave the Institute of Christ the King the approval to use the 1952 missal before they changed to the 1962 missal, did they admit it was never abrogated?
Cuck. Indeed such an ugly, nauseating word. As I just said above in response to TGS in my series of comments on cuckery, I believe it perfectly reflects the pitiful perversion of the lib-cuck, cuckservative, and CatholiCuck phenomenon.
Typically cucky.
Of all the essays I listed above on cucks, I suggest beginning with this one:
Unmasking the Cucks http://www.amren.com/features/2016/01/unmasking-the-cucks/
First paragraph:
Cuckservative! A term for duplicitous, nation-betraying pseudo-conservatives, it was the Insult of the Year for 2015. It horrified the lefties at Salon and the Washington Post last summer, and appalled the faux-conservatives at National Review, all of whom denounced it as crude, offensive, and obscene.
Nothing says “I’m obtuse” like critiquing a fat fingered typo or misspelling rather than the substance.
….excerpt from ‘No King but Caesar’ by Hugh Akins
“Christ is King of kings. To deny that He is King of civil rulers, King of parliaments, King of ‘kings’, is, in effect to deny that He is God. Cardinal Pie made that dramatic statement over 100 years ago. When in the 1960 John F. Kennedy – hardly a Catholic but in name only, though unfortunately a Catholic in the eyes of the grossly confused world – campaigned for the presidency of the United States, he had the audacity to solemnly swear, in public and before the entire world listening in, that if elected president his religion would have no bearing on his public conduct and political decisions, or on those of his future administration. He actually stated that the man-made Constitution, and not the divine commandments or Gospel or papal encyclicals, would be his moral guide as president. (Catholics of today think the same, this is the reason why this country has not been converted from Protestantism to the Catholic Faith……my emphasis). In so doing he not only caved into to the ruinous notion of the Separation of Church and State, he publicly and blasphemously repudiated the rights of God and the one true Church. Such is the unrepentant, unabashed arrogance of these liberals.
Dr. William Marra, himself a one-time presidential candidate, although unlike Kennedy a Catholic far more than in name only, correctly called this episode with JFK one of the most shameful in Catholic American history.
Michael Davies in one of his most important books, ‘The Second Vatican Council and Religious Liberty’, writes how the Vatican document ‘Dignitatis humanae,’ repudiates the rights of Christ the King and His Holy Catholic Church; how Father Murray was instrumental in getting the ultra-liberal/Americanist/socialist John F. Kennedy elected President.”
Despite his modernist background, Pope Benedict XVI was still the only Pope since VII that I believed the Holy Ghost was actually working through and it happened around 4 or 5 times. 1) when he criticized the Muslim “religion” 2) when he said non-catholic sects should not be called Church’s 3) lifting both the sspx and 4) T.L.M. bans, even though I know neither were probably really banned to begin with.
What amazed me than though is how much impact a Pope has on the Church and even the whole world when he does or says even one little thing remotely traditional. In fact and unfortunately, if I remember correctly mainstream Catholic medias like ewtn went into their emergency 24/7 damage control mode to do everything in their power to water down what Pope Benedict XVI had said each time, but especially the time about protestants not being Church’s, in order not to offend all their ex-protestant PJPII cult employed converts.
And speaking of PJPII I think the reason PBXVI had to do this and quickly was because he realized Catholics, especially the JPII converts, never heard anything like these traditional teachings during the 27 years of his papacy and if anything probably the exact opposite.
TGS, you know this already, but for the benefit of others who are still looking into things, I’d like to highlight one “chunk” that was deliberately omitted from the mass of Paul VI.
The essential nature of the Mass is that it is a sacrifice of Propitiation, that is, one which makes satisfaction for sin.
This is the most significant “chunk” of Catholic dogma that the Novus Ordo Missae deliberately omitted.
Since the minister of a sacrament is presumed to intend what the surrounding Rite means, then what is the priest’s (or presider’s) intention when saying this new mass? Is it to do what the Church does?
Does the Church say the mass can be victimless – and not propitiatory? If yes, then She contradicts herself. If no, then the presider’s intention must be considered to be defective, and the new mass is thereby invalid.
Can anyone please show me why I am completely wrong on this point? How I would love to be wrong.
TPS:
I’m able to post only from my phone for a few days as my laptop went in for repair yesterday. Thanks for the questions: could it wait until I get the laptop back? My fat fingers can’t cope with this tiny keyboard (Chinese rubbish).
Johnbilbee: “Despite his modernist background, Pope Benedict XVI was still the only Pope since VII that I believed the Holy Ghost was actually working through and it happened around 4 or 5 times. 1) when he criticized the Muslim “religion” 2) when he said non-catholic sects should not be called Church’s 3) lifting both the sspx and 4) T.L.M. bans, even though I know neither were probably really banned to begin with.”
No, those moments only prove he is a Modernist through and through. Modernists always make it seem like they are Catholic ….. sometimes. It’s part of the plan to fool folks like yourself.
And Benedict XVI also apologized for his so-called criticism of Islam.
Sorry, sweep, all the praise you heap on Malachi Martin is not going to convince me that he was one of the “good guys”.
/
“A double-minded man is inconstant in all his ways.”
— James 1, 8 —
(triple-, quadruple–minded for all the aka’s he had)
/
http://callmejorgebergoglio.blogspot.com/2018/08/malachi-martin-kabbalist.html
Tak jest!
One is either protected by the Holy Ghost or not. If we have to sift the various actions and teachings of the Church to seperate the good from the bad, then what is the use of the Papacy? If we have to sift, then Luther was right. We don’t need a teaching authority, we can all do it for ourselves. When we hear heresy, we are to flee.
I beg to differ Fr. the laity have been brainwashed into believing clergy to the point of locking their own God given common sense into a vault and I can give you a thousand and on tragic examples.
You are an alter Christi when you put on your stole or step up to the altar to celebrate the Sacred Mysteries.
You do not necessarily represent Christ for the laity when you are cooking dinner or going to the bathroom or even posting here on a blog.
While I respect your office , I do not necessarily respect all your opinions and that goes for every other cleric including the Pope.
Galatians 3
18 For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise. But God gave it to Abraham by promise.
19 Why then was the law? It was set because of transgressions, until the seed should come, to whom he made the promise, being ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.
20 Now a mediator is not of one: but God is one.
21 Was the law then against the promises of God? God forbid. For if there had been a law given which could give life, verily justice should have been by the law.
22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise, by the faith of Jesus Christ, might be given to them that believe.
23 But before the faith came, we were kept under the law shut up, unto that faith which was to be revealed.
24 Wherefore the law was our pedagogue in Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
25 But after the faith is come, we are no longer under a pedagogue.
26 For you are all the children of God by faith, in Christ Jesus.
Zobacz, jak rządzą się w Polsce……..jacy mocni, ale do czasu.
@frdbelland (and any and all others):
In the preceding comments you explained why you think that Pope? Francis is not the False Prophet based in part on what Sr. Lucy stated was our current age’s place in the Apocalypse time-line.
I was first introduced to Catholic prophesy concerning the end times through the now defunct blog The Catholic Knight (http://catholicknight.blogspot.com/).
In the summary provided in the aforementioned blog, the Church will go through a great apostasy called the Minor Chastisement until She is restored by the coming of the Holy Pope and the Great Monarch.
After this period of restoration there will come an even greater apostasy known as the Major Chastisement which will see the rise of the Anti-Christ and the False Prophet and which will culminate in the Second Coming of Christ.
According to the blog, the Church has now entered this Minor Chastisement period.
My question is the following:
Are these notions of Minor and a Major Chastisement epochs and a Holy Pope and the Great Monarch restoring the Church in between these two periods authentic Catholic beliefs?
I would suggest studying more prayerfully the Book of the Apocalypse and referring back to Jesus’ own words in the NT regarding the End Times and the OT Prophets.
Bishop Scicluna will be coming here to “investigate” for the Vatican.
“Worrying Abuse Allegations in Scicluna’s Backyard”
http://marklambert.blogspot.com/2018/08/worrying-abuse-allegations-in-sciclunas.html
I’ll be here!
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, 1441, ex cathedra:
“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and teaches that the matter pertaining to the law of the Old Testament, the Mosaic law, which are divided into ceremonies, sacred rites, sacrifices, and sacraments… after our Lord’s coming… ceased, and the sacraments of the New Testament began.. All, therefore, who after that time (the promulgation of the Gospel) observe circumcision and the Sabbath and the other requirements of the law, the holy Roman Church declares alien to the Christian faith and not in the least fit to participate in eternal salvation.”
In 1994 Dr Bill Marra came to our hotel room and warned us not to send our daughter to Christendom College. He was absolutely correct as the years went by and we saw Fr Robert Sirico had been invited to speak there along with other sad revelations such as rape complaints from students and now this.
Eternal Rest Bill Marra.
https://www.christendom.edu/2017/03/07/acclaimed-art-historian-elizabeth-lev-to-take-on-the-temples-at-christendom/
https://regainnetwork.org/
The saprophytic cognoscenti infesting the Conciliar Structure know no shame. ‘O shame, where is thy blush?’ asked Hamlet. Shame is utterly foreign to these saprophytes.
“Since the minister of a sacrament is presumed to intendwhat the surrounding Rite means,”
You are wrong because that would be the tail wagging the dog. The priest is presumed to intend to do what the Church intends him to do, unless he publicly states his intention is contrary to the intention of the Church. This is why Fr. Gregory Hesse is correct and the sedevacantists like Fr. Cekata are wrong concerning the validity of the schismatic New Novel Rite. Yes the proper intent is not stated in the New Novel Rite, but it still exists in the New Heterodox Church of Rome, because it has not said otherwise publicly.
For you to prove that you are correct. You would first have to show the intent of the sacrament stated specifically in every traditional rite of every sacrament used in the Church and also those used by schismatics, but judged valid by the Church prior to 1958. If I remember correctly, that’s why Fr. Hesse disagrees with the sedevacantist conclusions on the matter and has come to the conclusion he has.
“One is either protected by the Holy Ghost or not. If we have to sift the various actions and teachings of the Church to seperate the good from the bad, then what is the use of the Papacy? If we have to sift, then Luther was right. We don’t need a teaching authority, we can all do it for ourselves. When we hear heresy, we are to flee.”
We can only refute a pope by quoting one of his predecessors. So the us of the Papacy is to help us separate the good from the bad when heresy comes from a pope, something you cannot do yourself without a pope!
Another reason Fr Hesse disagees with Fr Cekada is that Fr Hesse was ordained in the New Rite. If you watch his videos, one of his “proofs” of validity is that he can “feel his priesthood.” This issue of intent has been answered many times in pre V2 documents and by pre-V2 theologians.
https://novusordowatch.org/2013/06/unholy-orders-invalid-bishops/
I am not sure this issue can ever be settled definitively until a traditional non-modernist Pope again reigns. In the meantime, the New Rites do add a tremendous degree of doubt for me so I simply avoid the NO sect. I would say that the New Rites were formulated for a new priesthood, a new mass, and a new religion. Validity is important but the bigger issue is whether this new religion is Catholic or not. If one concludes that the new religion is not Catholic, then validity doesn’t really matter, does it? The New Church may actually intend to ordain deacons, priests, and bishops, but is the intent to ordain Catholic deacons, priests, and bishops or to ordain Novus Ordo deacons, priests, and bishops. I think the answer to that is painfully clear.
Somebody way above in the comments said something about Bishop Williamson being a homo. ?? If there is something to know about this could somebody fill me in. I was very distressed when I read that comment as I thought Bishop Williamson was practically the last good one left?!?. Was that just a stupid comment or is there some real proof of this? How do you know this? Who says? What evidence? Thank you in advance.
https://www.scribd.com/doc/15443209/Comparison-of-Old-and-New-Catholic-Rites-of-Ordination-to-the-Priesthood#
The new Rites also remove every mention of offering propriatory sacrifice for sin.
Huh? How do I know which Pope is right?
TPS: “Since the minister of a sacrament is presumed to intend what the surrounding Rite means…”
–
Now hold on here. Where does the Church teach that the minister is presumed to INTEND what the surrounding rite MEANS, as opposed to INTENDING to do what the Church DOES while performing the rite?
By performing the sacramental act during a rite approved by the Church, the minister is presumed to intend to do what the Church does.
It was vile calumny.
Fr Cekada never says the issue with the new rites are intent. Always form.
Lol…yes I saw that … he feels his priesthood.
Maybe this will help.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/sspx-respice-stellam-resistance-splinter-catholic-group-kent-priests-child-abuse-accuse-roman-a7670591.html
Thank you for the response but that article doesn’t say anything about him being a homo. And since it’s obviously written by people who hate him, then I’m sure they would’ve mentioned it if there was something to mention. As for the other “bad” things said about him, well…I think it’s fabulous that he publicly “denied” the holohoax. That’s what makes him such a brave hero!
Please note my post did not say he was a hx. Only that he sheltered them. I do not believe he is any any kind of hero ,especially as he was the head of the Winona Seminary while a class of proven pervs operated under his nose. Urrutigoity, Ensey ( defrocked) Fullerton and several of their “friends”. So great he KNOWS the holocaust was a hoax but missed his fellow sspx aka “Guru groiney ” or also described by some at the seminary as, “U Root a Groiney” right under his heroic nose? How does that work?
“I would say that the New Rites were formulated for a new priesthood, a new mass, and a new religion. Validity is important but the bigger issue is whether this new religion is Catholic or not. If one concludes that the new religion is not Catholic, then validity doesn’t really matter, does it? The New Church may actually intend to ordain deacons, priests, and bishops, but is the intent to ordain Catholic deacons, priests, and bishops or to ordain Novus Ordo deacons, priests, and bishops. I think the answer to that is painfully clear.”
If the same people created the 1955, 1958, 1962 missal as created the new Mass and the New religion (Church of Man), and they certainly made those early changes of the Roman Missal to get to that point, they wanted to get to “the church of man,” it does not follow that the 1958 missal used by CMRI sedevacantists is not valid! But that would be the conclusion of your argument!
Feelings aside, Fr. Hesse was saying in no uncertain terms, because the New Novel Rite is schismatic, based on historical precedence, of judging the validity of schismatic rites, it would be judged valid!
You might find this also of interest Re:Williamson
http://mauricepinay.blogspot.com/2014/04/bp-williamson-and-midrash-of-man-god.html
Politics aside, I do not find him to be any hero of Traditional Catholicism. In fact , I do not find politics to be Catholic at all whether it is the PC UN loving Francis or coming from any other so called representative of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
Jesus did not come to earth to instruct us on politics.
I would say the new novel rites are heretical. Leo XIII declared Anglican Orders null and void based on the Anglicans erroneous understanding of the priesthood. Same can easily be said for the NO sect. I think the Fr Cekada argument (and others) raises enough doubt that I avoid NO sacraments. I have seen all the Fr Hesse videos and read a lot of NO responses to this question. None of them are conclusive in my opinion. There should be absolutely no doubt as to sacramental validity. The fact that the NO sect purposely introduced doubt speaks volumes.
The liturgical tinkering with the Mass prior to 1968 was not the creation of new masses. It was accidental changes well within the authority of a true Pope. The Pauline Rites were new creations since it changed the essence of the Rites. Well, they were not exactly new creations, they were versions of the rites created by Anglicans after they seperated from Rome. These Anglican rites were all eventually determined to be null and void by Pope Leo XIII.
Apostolicae Curae.
“A person who has correctly and seriously used the requisite matter and form to effect and confer a sacrament *is presumed for that very reason* to have intended to do (intendisse) what the Church does.
On this principle rests the doctrine that a Sacrament is truly conferred by the ministry of one who is a heretic or unbaptized, *provided the Catholic rite be employed*.
On the other hand, if the rite be changed, with the manifest intention of introducing another rite not approved by the Church and of rejecting what the Church does, and what, by the institution of Christ, belongs to the nature of the Sacrament, then it is clear that not only is the necessary intention wanting to the Sacrament, but that the intention is adverse to and destructive of the Sacrament.”
– Pope Leo XIII, Apostolicae Curae, on the invalidity of Anglican Orders
Intention is tied to the Rite.
In Fr Cekada’s “Work of Human Hands: A Theological Critique of the Mass of Paul VI”, one of his arguments is that of defective intention.
What is the “intent” of the NO rites? To offer a propitiatory sacrifice for sin or to offer a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving? It is crystal clear the intent of the older rites. The confusion and ambiguity of the new rites creates doubt.
“Feelings aside, Fr. Hesse was saying in no uncertain terms, because the New Novel Rite is schismatic, based on historical precedence, of judging the validity of schismatic rites, it would be judged valid!”
One of the first things I watched when I realized something was wrong (before deciding on sedevacantism) was Fr Hesse’s video/talk about the new rites. I took copious notes, read and re-read them, and when all was said and done, something about Fr Hesse’s explanation just didn’t add up for me.
Unfortunately, I do not think one can put aside his mention of “his feelings” about his priesthood. The fact that he thought it was important to bring them into the discussion is enough to tell me that he was compromised/biased in his conclusions.
If they can approve of “for you and for all men”, which fails to express the res sacramenti (and thereby makes the sacrament invalid), then it’s no large leap to hold that they also altered the theology of the Mass expressed throughout the Rite itself sufficiently to cause a defect of intention, is it?
This is very very serious and cannot be downplayed because it leads to unpleasant conclusions.
TPS: Please cite where in that book where Fr Cekada states that the intent of the minister invalidates the new mass. I have the book and would like to read where he states that. I don’t recall this argument at all.
I think there is confusion here about intent.
There is the intent of those who create a new, non-Catholic rite (Anglicans and Novus Ordo). And then there is the intent of those who use a Catholic Rite (the Church presumes that if a Catholic Rite is used…proper form and matter….then proper intent is also presumed). The former is an issue. The latter is not.
To say that the NO rites are schismatic and valid is to put them on the same level as the Orthodox Church’s rites (which are valid). I don’t see how anyone can come to the conclusion that these two are essentially the same.
Very well said, Tom A.. Very much on the same page as you.
TPS, that’s what I thought you were referring to. Leo XIII is not saying the intention of the minister is to do what the rite MEANS.
What he is saying is that when a non Catholic sect creates a new rite with an ambiguous FORM and with the “the MANIFEST INTENTION of introducing another rite NOT APPROVED BY THE CHURCH and of REJECTING what the Church does,” the proper intention is lacking. The Anglican sect does not intend to do what the Church does when it consecrates a bishop and their new rite reflects this. That’s why the intention is deficient.
That argument does not apply to a rite that IS APPROVED BY THE CHURCH, since the Church does intend to do what ‘it’ (the Church) does.
Additionally, eliminating explicit mention of Propitiation (atonement for sin), which is one of the four ends of the Mass, does not cause a defect of intent in the minister, any more than excluding explicit mentioning the infusion of grace (the washing away of original sin) results in a defect of intention in the minister of baptism.
Go hang iy up Alphonse !
We all know the Talmud (O) traditional hatred of Christians , some of us are versed in the Protocols and we know the history of the Marrano’s along with the Rothschild dynasty. To praise Hitler or shelter the nazi Touvier is definitely not Catholic thought.
Williamson, Angles and Hewko ( all three in different camps now) all spewed this garbage. I personally heard Hewko from the pulpit and friends of ours heard Angles do the same in Kansas.
Yes I love the Traditional Latin Mass but not at the expense of listening to error.
I’m not sure why I cannot reply to the proper post?
“I would say the new novel rites are heretical. Leo XIII declared Anglican Orders null and void based on the Anglicans erroneous understanding of the priesthood. Same can easily be said for the NO sect. I think the Fr Cekada argument (and others) raises enough doubt that I avoid NO sacraments. I have seen all the Fr Hesse videos and read a lot of NO responses to this question. None of them are conclusive in my opinion. There should be absolutely no doubt as to sacramental validity. The fact that the NO sect purposely introduced doubt speaks volumes.”
Heresy per say does not render a sacrement invalid, the Orthodox are heretical, but they have valid sacraments. The Anglicans mass is invalid because of a lack of proper intent expressed publicly by the Anglican sect.
The end of modernism is atheism, but not all modernists are atheists at this point, cultural modernists may not even be heretics, but they are headed in that direction. We know the direction the New Novel Rite is heading. The ends does not invalidate the changes in the transitional missals which are the means being employed by them. However we could say the ends can render the transitional missals illicit and schismatic, or we could conclude what is illicit and schismatic didn’t actually occur till say the 1964 missal 1968 missal or the 1974 missal. I see your claiming it’s occurs in the 1962 missal!
What is the lack of proper intent or lack of proper form expressed publicly by the New Novel Rite, the New Heterodox Church of Rome, that renders the sacraments invalid, and what was the first missal that became invalid because of that publicly expressed position?
“I reject Satan and all his works and all his pomps.” To conditionally re-ordain priests of the New Novel Rite with the Roman Rite is a way of rejecting all the works and all the pomps of the modernists!
Fr. Cekata asks in a youtube post why Catholics are so scared of sedevacantist theology. It probably has more to do with the invalid sacraments proclamation or position then the lose of jurisdiction of heretical prelates position!
I guess we are just laymen wondering what authentic Catholic theology is concerning these questions, we end up shaking pom poms and wiggling our butts as cheer leaders for our home team!
Ratio, the Orthodox are schismatics, not heretics. Hence, the “Great Schism” of 1054. Also, please spell Father’s name correctly: it is CekaDa not CekaTa.
Must you litter every combox with your preening prolixity? Give it a rest, woman!
Prolixity is the definition of every single one of your nonsense hate filled commentary Alfonse .I suggest you go back and read the long string of insanity with your moniker above and the replies to you from the majority of posters with a brain.
Ratio, for the sake of argument, if you could definitively prove that all NO rites were valid, I would still have nothing to do with them.
I have lent the book to someone. I believe it is towards the end, where he talks about changing the consecratory formula into an historical narrative. Pre-Vatican II theologians said that if the minister says the words of the form as an historical narrative and not as a consecratory form, then that manifests a defect of intention, rendering the sacrament invalid. He quotes one in his video, but three or four in the book making the same point.
There is also no Offertory, no offering of a Victim. The new mass does not offer a Victim for sin. The pattern of deletion throughout the rite of any clear reference to a propitiatory sacrifice was deliberate. The creators of the new rite were public in their intention to make the mass as close as possible to the protestant Lord’s Supper, which is a meal, not a sacrifice.
This is not what the Church teaches about the Mass. In fact, it is condemned by Trent. Can it be called a Catholic Rite then?
Have you read Leo XIII’s Apostolicae Curae? Read it through a couple of times and let it sink in. It is clear and straight to the point.
It deals with the invalid rite of Anglican “holy orders” specifically, but the Pope uses general principles which govern all the sacraments to show why the Anglican rites of orders are invalid, due to manifest defect of intention.
Apply this to the novus rite of mass, and the novus rite of orders, and it gets very serious. I can’t change that, as much as I wish it were otherwise.
At best, we hae grave and positive doubt and should be avoided.
I’m not clear on whether or not you think the novus rites are Catholic Rites, approved by the Church. Since the creators of the novus rites were boldly proclaiming their intention to make the new mass as close as possible to the protestant Lord’s Supper, by deleting the essential nature of the Catholic Mass, then how is it a rite of the Church?
Exactly Tom!
If we have to sift a current Pope against a previous Pope, how do we know the previous Pope was right?
The Papacy is not divisible. You either submit to his teaching entirely, or, if he’s not actually the Pope, then reject both him and his teaching entirely.
It is the conciliar Popes who have rejected all the teachings of the previous Popes. Now we have a conciliar Pope rejecting the teaching of the previous conciliar popes.
Tps…i think we agree. I believe that the creators of the new rites did not intend for them to be Catholic and they are not Catholic. I believe this is what Fr Cekada says as well. I think I thought you meant intent of minister.
They don’t believe in the dogma of the infallible pope or the dogma of the infallible Church and a few other things which make them heretical. They don’t believe the Holy Ghost preceded from the Son also, but the Father only, even though the Son said He was going to send the Holy Ghost!
I wish I could get a spelling nazi like yourself to fix my spell check. My spell check is a hyper sensitive nut that changes things on me 3 times without notification.
The first one to propose a doctrine for our belief.
“Exactly Tom!
If we have to sift a current Pope against a previous Pope, how do we know the previous Pope was right?
The Papacy is not divisible. You either submit to his teaching entirely, or, if he’s not actually the Pope, then reject both him and his teaching entirely.”
If you were correct, the pope would be God not the Vicar of Christ. If you were correct, you could not refute a pope by quoting his predecessor, and the magisterium would have 1 level not 3 – Authentic, Ordinary, and Extra Ordinary.
“Ratio, for the sake of argument, if you could definitively prove that all NO rites were valid, I would still have nothing to do with them.”
That’s good!
If you could prove they are invalid, they could call not just a cheerleader, but an honest man!
Fr (?) Hesse was my first serious stop over too once I realised how terribly wrong things are. But when he said the new rite of Orders is valid, because he can “feel” it, I kept looking. A lot of what he said was good though, and it was how I began to be “red pilled” regarding Vatican II and the new mass.
Well, I do mean that. The new rites were created from scratch by men whose intention in fabricating them was to be essentially the same theology of the Protestants. This intention is dyed into the rite, so that when the minister uses it, he manifests that same intention. Regardless if whether or not he has this intention internally, or means to do what the Church does, the effect is the same. Since the Church is visible, she only judges what is visible. A bad rite cannot rectify a good interior intention.
The Vicar of Christ is divinely protected from teaching error or heresy. Bergoglio is manifestly not under this protection.
Even if he wasn’t in Rome wearing a white cassock, but was just some guy in your local parish, you’d know he was not a Catholic – not a member of the Mystical Body of Christ – by his own words and deeds.
No declaration is necessary by the Church for one to tell a Catholic from a non Catholic, because this would just beg the question.
Apart from the outward profession of Faith by Her members, there is no way to identify the visible Catholic Church.
If one gives up that fundamental point, one has destroyed the visibility of the Church.
OK, I see what you are trying to say and I don’t think we are saying different things. Bottom line: the issue is the new rite is NOT Catholic. Therefore, the intent (internal) of the minister who recites it is moot.
Ratio: “They don’t believe in the dogma of the infallible pope or the dogma of the infallible Church and a few other things which make them heretical. They don’t believe the Holy Ghost preceded from the Son also, but the Father only, even though the Son said He was going to send the Holy Ghost!”
The Catholic Church considers them schismatics, not heretics. Again, “The Great SCHISM”. Please provide Catholic Church support that the Orthodox are “heretics”, not your personal interpretation.
Ratio: “I wish I could get a spelling nazi like yourself to fix my spell check. My spell check is a hyper sensitive nut that changes things on me 3 times without notification.”
You seem pretty antagonistic in your replies to those who disagree with you so far. It would be helpful if you would lose the attitude. I asked you politely to fix the spelling of Fr Cekada’s name.
“Tps…i think we agree. I believe that the creators of the new rites did not intend for them to be Catholic and they are not Catholic. I believe this is what Fr Cekada says as well. I think I thought you meant intent of minister.”
We have to presume that the priest intends to do what the Church intends to do with a sacramental rite that was deceptively created to thwart what the Church intends to do. Some are teaching that results in an invalid sacrament, others are saying it would still be a valid sacrament. Though this problem started in 1955, even so, some say it did not kick in and create invalid sacraments till 1962 because the pope at the time lost jurisdiction because of heresy. Which means, sacramental invalidity is caused by the heresy of those who approved of the use of the rite, and not by the fact that the rite was created to thwart the intent of the Church! Option number two, some say the sacrament is not valid because the dogma of Trent was not violated till 1962. This means, we all agree that a rite that was created to thwart the intent of the Church is still valid when the intent of the Church is deployed!
The late, colorful Fr. Hesse did a lot of good in his time, and he certainly did yeoman’s work communicating the problems of Vatican II, Modernism and the New Mass and sacraments to lay people in terms lay people could understand.
He made a few honest mistakes though- Pius V’s bull Quo Primum being “infallible” is one that always sticks out (Fr. Cekada deals with that error quite charitably) and of course his “I feel my priesthood” that several people here are referring to. Feelings don’t constitute an argument but in all fairness, I think he made that remark within the context of a much larger discourse. If I find the time I’ll have to dig up the talk he made the remark in and see.
He passed over the new rite of Orders quite quickly in that video. He doesn’t go very far into it, and in no way answers any of the valid objections raised by Fr Jenkins and Fr Cekada. I am sorry, but in this grave situation, it’s imperative that we leave no stone unturned, and no assumption left as fact.
I’m sure you know the video I mean – the one where he drinks wine…
Because the people who drafted the new rites were heretics (including the man in charge who gave them final approval) then there is no guarantee of safety or validity. So one has to apply the teaching of the Church on the Sacraments on a case by case basis. A heretic could still fluke it and produce a valid rite, form and matter for a sacrament, but that’s not guaranteed.
We have to presume that the pope can teach any and every aspect of the Faith to anyone with the use of reason. Confident in having understood his words, one can apply them to make necessary judgements on how to navigate this world safely.